Expert: Texas leaders need to expedite long-term energy solutions

Guest column

"Texas is an energy leader and no one wants to see that change." Photo via Getty Images

Soaring temperatures have arrived, and while Texans should be enjoying the return to normalcy, instead they're facing another energy crisis.

Many saw February's winter storm and severe power outages as a once-in-a-century problem, but these unusual events are becoming all too commonplace, despite the governor's directive to improve grid reliability. Last month, Texans were again being asked to conserve energy while lawmakers considered a slew of new regulations, some of which would cripple investments in renewable energy.

For three months following the storm, the Texas legislature debated how to prevent another energy crisis. We applaud our elected officials for resisting political pressure to wrongly blame and punish renewable energy, and we want to encourage them to continue with this forward-thinking strategy.

Texas is an energy leader and no one wants to see that change. We urge our representatives in Austin to take a comprehensive view of what went wrong during the winter storm and ensure that any new rules and regulations work in support of, and not against, the energy market as a whole.

Texas needs a long term, comprehensive plan – not just for preventing blackouts, but for a more sustainable state.

Hot weather in Texas is a given, but we're anticipating temperatures will continue to rise. A climatologist at Texas A&M University recently predicted that the state will see the number of 100-degree days double by 2036. Rather than take a step back, we need to move forward and prioritize renewable energy as well as other investments in sustainability to future-proof our state and our planet.

Prioritizing green energy will have a ripple effect on Texas' economy. As the country's leader in wind-generated electricity, Texas has already reaped the benefit of creating thousands of new jobs for the state. In 2019, it was reported that Texas had over 230,000 clean energy jobs. If our state leaders are committed to job creation, we want to see how they're supporting clean energy, as well as continuing to work on maintaining the grid in an effective, efficient way.

The energy market is complex and dynamic, but it’s a key player in our road to a sustainable future.

Continuing to invest in renewable energy is one simple step our lawmakers can make to ensure our energy market is addressing the climate crisis — and that Texans aren't dependent on generators and gas-fired power plants which let the state down during Winter Storm Uri. This should be a priority. In a recent survey of 1,000 adults by OnePoll in May 2021 commissioned by Bulb, 74 percent of respondents stated Texas should continue to develop and invest in renewable energy and over half of respondents expressed that investing in more green, clean renewable energy is the most important environmental issue that needs to be addressed.

As we come out of the pandemic, we have a chance to do better, together.

Texas has had over $60 billion in renewable energy investment to provide low-cost electricity generation. And with the growing technology sector across the state, there'll be more opportunities for renewables in the future. Continuing to promote policies that pushed Texas to its leadership position will unleash even more investments and innovation, which is good for Texas, good for Texans and good for the planet.

------

Vinnie Campo is the general manager for Bulb U.S., a new type of energy company that aims to make energy simpler, cheaper, and greener by providing renewable electricity to its members from Texas wind and solar. He is based in Texas.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston innovator on how health tech’s rise offers roadmap for climatetech growth

guest column

Over the past several decades, climate tech has faced numerous challenges, ranging from inconsistent public support to a lack of funding from cautious investors. While grassroots organizations and climate innovators have made notable efforts to address urgent environmental issues, we have yet to see large-scale, lasting impact.

A common tendency is to compare climate tech to the rapid advancements made in digital and software technology, but perhaps a more appropriate parallel is the health tech sector, which encountered many of the same struggles in its early days.

Observing the rise of health tech and the economic and political support it received, we can uncover strategies that could stabilize and propel climate tech forward.

Health tech's slow but steady rise

Health tech’s slow upward trajectory began in the mid-20th century, with World War II serving as a critical turning point for medical research and development. Scientists working on wartime projects recognized the broader benefits of increased research funding for the general public, and soon after, the Public Health Service Act of 1944 was passed. This landmark legislation directed resources toward eradicating widespread diseases, viewing them as a national economic threat. By acknowledging diseases as a danger to both public health and the economy, the government laid the groundwork for significant policy changes.

This serves as an essential lesson for climate tech: if the federal government were to officially recognize climate change as a direct threat to the nation’s economy and security, it could lead to similar shifts in policy and resource allocation.

The role of public advocacy and federal support

The growth of health tech wasn’t solely reliant on government intervention. Public advocacy played a key role in securing ongoing support. Voluntary health agencies, such as the American Cancer Society, lobbied for increased funding and spread awareness, helping to attract public interest and investment. But even with this advocacy, early health tech startups struggled to secure venture capital. VCs were hesitant to invest in areas they didn’t fully understand, and without sustained government funding and public backing, it’s unlikely that health tech would have grown as quickly as it has.

The lesson here for climate tech is clear: strong public advocacy and education are crucial. However, unlike health tech, climate tech faces a unique obstacle — there is still a significant portion of the population that either denies the existence of climate change or doesn’t view it as an immediate concern. This lack of urgency makes it difficult to galvanize the public and attract the necessary long-term investment.

Government support: A mixed bag

There have been legislative efforts to support climate tech, though they haven’t yet led to the explosive growth seen in health tech. For example, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 gave universities and small businesses the rights to profit from their innovations, including climate-related research. More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 has been instrumental in advancing climate tech by creating opportunities to build projects, lower household energy costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite this federal support, many climate tech companies are still struggling to scale. A primary concern for investors is the longer time horizon required for climate startups to yield returns. Scalability is crucial — companies must demonstrate how they will grow profitably over time, but many climate tech startups lack practical long-term business models.

As climate investor Yao Huang put it, “At the end of the day, a climate tech company needs to demonstrate how it will make money. We can apply political pressure and implement governmental policies, but if it is not profitable, it won’t scale or create meaningful impact.”

The public’s role in scaling climate tech

Health tech’s success can largely be attributed to a combination of federal funding, public advocacy, and long-term investment from knowledgeable VCs. Climate tech has federal support in place, thanks to the IRA, but is still lacking the same level of public backing. Health tech overcame its hurdles when public awareness about the importance of medical advancements grew, and voluntary health agencies helped channel donations toward research and innovation.

In contrast, climate nonprofits like Cool Earth, Environmental Defense Fund, and Clean Air Task Force face a severe funding shortfall. A 2020 study revealed that climate nonprofits aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only received $2 billion in donations, representing just 0.4% of all philanthropic funding. Without greater public awareness/sense of urgency and financial support, these groups cannot effectively advocate for climate tech startups or lobby for necessary policy changes. This type of philanthropic funding is also known as ‘catalytic capital’ or ‘impact-first-capital’. Prime Impact Fund is one such fund that does not ‘view investments as concessionary on return’. Rather their patient and flexible capital allows support of high risk, high-reward ventures.

A path forward for climate tech

The most valuable insight from health tech’s growth is that government intervention, while critical, is not enough to guarantee the success of an emerging sector. Climate tech needs a stronger support system, including informed investors, widespread public backing, and nonprofits with the financial resources to advocate for industry-wide growth.

If we can channel the same sense of urgency and public commitment toward climate change as we did for health crises in the past, climate tech could overcome its current obstacles.The future of climate tech depends not just on government policies, but on educating the public, rallying financial support, and building a robust infrastructure for long-term growth.

———

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus, a startup hub for the energy transition.

This article originally ran on EnergyCapital.

Houston schools lead rankings for best entrepreneurship programs for 6th consecutive year

top of class

Rice University and the University of Houston have once again topped The Princeton Review and Entrepreneur’s lists of the best graduate and undergraduate schools for entrepreneurship studies.

Rice ranks first in the graduate category for the sixth consecutive year, and UH ranks first in the undergraduate category for the sixth consecutive year.

“At Rice Business, our students learn both inside and outside the classroom, drawing on our strong industry and community connections in Houston and beyond,” says Peter Rodriguez, dean of Rice’s Jones Graduate School of Business. “With small class sizes and tailored programs, we aim to equip our students with the skills to create new ventures and excel in a fast-changing business landscape.”

UH President Renu Khator praises the ranking as recognition for the impact of the Cyvia and Melvyn Wolff Center for Entrepreneurship at the C.T. Bauer College of Business.

“This program is a tremendous asset not only to the University of Houston and the Bauer College of Business, but also to the city of Houston, where entrepreneurship fuels both socioeconomic mobility and economic growth,” Khator says. “We are proud to see the impact of this program reverberate throughout our community.”

Rankings for The Princeton Review and Entrepreneur’s 2025 lists were based on a survey of administrators at nearly 300 schools in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Europe that offer entrepreneurship studies. Among the more than 40 factors used for the rankings were academic programs, faculty credentials, mentorship opportunities, and alumni entrepreneurship ventures.

The top 10 schools on the list of the 50 best undergraduate schools for entrepreneurship studies are:

University of Houston
University of Texas at Austin
Babson College
University of Washington
Washington University in St. Louis
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Maryland-College Park
Miami University of Ohio
Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico
Northeastern University

The top 10 schools on the list of the 50 best graduate schools for entrepreneurship studies are:

Rice University
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Washington University in St. Louis
Babson College
University of Washington
University of Texas at Austin
University of Virginia
Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands
University of South Florida

2 Houston suburbs rank among top 10 US cities for population growth in 2023

by the numbers

Two burgeoning Houston suburbs – Atascocita and Conroe – are among the top 10 U.S. cities that have experienced the biggest population booms nationwide from 2022 to 2023.

A new population growth analysis by SmartAsset examined U.S. Census population estimates for 2023, 2022, and 2018 to determine one-year and five-year population changes for 610 U.S. cities with populations of at least 65,000 residents in 2023 (where the most recent data was available).

Silver Spring, Maryland had the No. 1 biggest population boom from 2022 to 2023, SmartAsset found. The Washington, D.C. suburb grew 12.86 percent year-over-year, bringing the city's total population from 75,313 to 84,996 residents in 2023.

Atascocita trailed close behind with a 11.03 percent increase in population from 2022 to 2023, which landed it the No. 5 spot in the one-year population change analysis. The city gained 11,876 new residents in that time, adding up to a total population of 119,502 residents in 2023.

This should come as no surprise to those who already live in Atascocita, who may know their hometown was ranked one of the most livable small cities in America in 2022, and earned a top-30 spot in a recent ranking of best U.S. suburbs for house renters in 2024.

According to SmartAsset's five-year population comparison, Atascocita had the second highest growth rate in the country, at 38.56 percent. There were only 86,243 residents living in the far-flung Houston suburb in 2018, showing an increase of 33,259 residents within the five-year period.

The report also examined the changes within Atascocita's working-age population:

Number of working-age residents in 2022 – 54,095
Number of working-age residents in 2023 – 58,297
Percent of population of working age in 2022 – 50.26 percent
Percent of population of working age in 2023 – 48.78 percent
One-year change in the number of working-age residents from 2022 to 2023 – 7.77 percent increase

Meanwhile, Conroe ranked No. 9 nationally with a 6.73 percent one-year change in total population. Conroe gained over 6,800 residents from 2022 to 2023, bringing the city's total population to 108,244 residents. The city had a far more dramatic five-year growth rate, at 23.49 percent.Conroe has also earned some well-deserved time in the spotlight as one of the best small cities in America in 2024, and the fifth best city for renters in Texas.

The report suggested major population shifts in communities like Atascocita and Conroe can result in "a variety of interwoven economic and social impacts."

"The magnitude of the population change can affect demand for businesses and services, which in turn may impact costs – or even the availability of such amenities," the report's author wrote. "Similarly, the relative age of the population can determine the strength or weakness of the local job market, as well as have an impact on local culture, economic trajectory, tax base and more."

Fast-growing cities elsewhere in Texas
Texas cities dominated the top 10 list of cities where population grew the most from 2022 to 2023.

New Braunfels, a San Antonio suburb, ranked No. 2 nationally with an 12.49 percent one-year population boom, and a 29.68 percent growth rate from 2018 to 2023. The city gained 12,318 new residents in that time, adding up to a total population of 110,961 residents in 2023.

The North Austin suburb of Georgetown (No. 4) ranked one spot above Atascocita with an 11.34 percent one-year population boom, and a 29.85 percent growth rate from 2018 to 2023.

The top 10 U.S. cities where population grew the most from 2022 to 2023 are:

No. 1 – Silver Spring, Maryland
No. 2 – New Braunfels, Texas
No. 3 – Glen Burnie, Maryland
No. 4 – Georgetown, Texas
No. 5 – Atascocita, Texas
No. 6 – Pine Hills, Florida
No. 7 – Elgin, Illinois
No. 8 – Lehi, Utah
No. 9 – Conroe, Texas
No. 10 – Dale City, Virginia